Monday, December 17, 2012

It was not a surprise that the response of the New York Times to the Connecticut public-school shootings was to run, not one, not two, not three, but four editorials calling for yet another push for gun control. The mainstream media have been waiting literally years for something like this to happen, and they are not about to let such a crisis go to waste.

It was predicted last October by people whom I respect--me--that schools would be next after Aurora didn't work. When this doesn't work, it will next be a sporting event or something similar, with several times the casualties.

It was predicted last October by people whom I respect--me--that schools would be next after Aurora didn't work. When this doesn't work, it will next be a sporting event or something similar, with several times the casualties.

I am tired of always having to be on the defensive after a shooting or some other incident that involves a person or issue on the political right. For example, anytime someone uses a gun to commit a crime, defenders of the 2nd Amendment must defend themselves.

However, when an illegal alien who's been arrested and released several times for drunk driving finally kills someone in an accident, the left doesn't have to defend their open borders position.

When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, the whole right had to go on the defense because it was accused of conducting a 'war on women'. Yet, when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin far worse, nothing happened.

I am sure you can find many other examples. The bottom line is I am tired of our side always having to be on the defensive.

If you find yourself doubting your convictions, just remind yourself of the media's refusal to report those crimes committed by illegal aliens, killings of innocents by police, and individuals' use of guns for self defense. It is no accident that the media only hypes those tragedies that give them an opportunity to further their agenda. And there is no reason to be defensive if you have done no wrong, so do not engage them on their terms, with some implicit assumption that you are the guilty party. Turn the tables on them. THEY are the ones who have sacrificed these innocents on the altar of statism.

We are dealing with ruthless scumbags who are hellbent on depriving the American people of liberty of all kinds, not just the right to keep and bear arms. Do not be confused about who and what you are dealing with.

The bottom line is I am tired of our side always having to be on the defensive.

You can thank a couple of generations of turning the other cheek to the unrelenting left handed drumbeat.

The headlines seldom read "rampage killer" or "sociopathic murderer". They usually read "gunman" or "shooter". At this point I don't really think it is some kind of intentional liberal plot, but rather the result of a couple of generations of conditioning. Now it's automatic and everybody just accepts it because it's the new normal.

If Adam Lanza had used a claw hammer, the headlines would have read "Just think what would have happened if he had a gun".

Proactively working to take back control of the narrative is the only way to turn things around if it's not already too late for anything to be effective.

"he who surrenders his unalienable right to arms also gives up his right to call himself an American."

In theory, I get what you're saying. But, here's the part that I don't get.

This is what I observe with my own lying eyes:

I see all these Americans who loudly pride themselves on their freedom, and they stockpile all these guns in order to, as they claim, safeguard this very same 'freedom.'

And then they sit idly on their massive stockpiles of guns, stupefied in front of the television, doing not a thing in the world, as their freedoms are, quite systematically and documented openly in real time, stripped away from them completely, one by one, right in front of their faces and with no apology at all, by John Roberts, John Boehner, the Democrat party, the NSA, the TSA, the NAACP, the SPLC, AIPAC, the ADL, MEChA, CAIR, and the National Council of La Raza -- to name just a few of the more visible operators.

An observer from Mars would conclude that Americans collect guns simply in order to defend their freedom to collect more guns, and mean nothing further by the practice.

The otherwise odious Madeleine Albright once had an interesting if cynical question about the use of arms. I wonder if anybody here can recall what it was.

Riveting! Crazed man kills nun who got herself to a nunnery. Beaten to death with a rock. Police say that paper and scissors were found nearby at the scene. The city of Worcestershire is currently saturated in a thick, fishy, panic.

The problem is that it's a contest between rights to security, both of which are Constitutional. The right to bear arms doesn't trump the right to not get shot, so it's a contest between equivalent interests.

My neighbor Larry Pratt had some good points in his USATODAY Editorial:

"In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.

What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone.

Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones."

1. It's wrong for innocent people to be killed by guns.2. If there were no guns, no innocent people would be killed by guns.3. Therefore, let's get rid of guns.

A potential parallel argument:

1. It's wrong for innocent people to be killed by drunk drivers.2. If there was no alcohol, there would be no drunk drivers.3. If there are no drunk drivers, no innocent people would be killed by drunk drivers.4. Therefore, let's get rid of alcohol.

Granted, the latter argument contains an additional premise, but if one accepts the former argument, shouldn't he also accept the latter?

I mean, if liberals truly cared so much about saving the lives of innocent people, shouldn't they demand to bring back prohibition?

The pretensions of the leftard media are easy to see especially in regards to their incessant semantic machinations. The use of "gunman" in describing all murderous rampages in the news as compared to other terms used in earlier media like "murderer" or "psychopath" etc...is no accident as etymologically anybody in possession of a gun could fit the definition of "gunman". Very Orwellian Newspeak that goes over the libtards heads.

See Genesis chapter 3 for who got that started. And it still works on the libtard er, um... I mean the woman.

Emotional blackmail for the Christmas season has been the order of the day for a long time. Far too many events are riled up or churned into an emotional and reactive drama of horrors.

Over the weekend I heard from several people who had nothing else to talk about but the Conn tragedy. Surely, its a tragedy, real or false flag, another true killer or manipulated subject of mind control, bogus or freak of nature some are left to wonder where were the drones? I dare not ask them b/c they have no idea of the NDAA, drones, patriot act but they know GUNS ARE BAD and that is the extent of their knowledge.

Just as there were no riots after the election, there will not yet be a gun grab.

Moving along, there are renewed calls for more mental health funding. Should the rolls/standards of SSDI, specifically for the mentally ill be widened until every remote mental health disorder is given a check? And what of this rumor of the young man in question was suffering from aspergers?

Granted, the latter argument contains an additional premise, but if one accepts the former argument, shouldn't he also accept the latter?

Yes, that's a pretty good analogy, but there are fairly strict laws controlling the sale and use of alcohol. Also, a better analogy would be against the entire spectrum of mind altering substances that can affect driving ability, and many of them are totally illegal. But I think your point holds, which is why I've never thought that prohibition was a totally insane proposition. It was impractical, but not ridiculous, considering the truly calamitous amount of damage alcohol really wreaks in our society.

The problem is that it's a contest between rights to security, both of which are Constitutional. The right to bear arms doesn't trump the right to not get shot, so it's a contest between equivalent interests. @ Great Martini

How does it make any sense to disarm the public and leave the government armed when over the last 100 years, governments around the world, including the U.S. federal government, have killed vastly more people in time of peace than all of the private murders in the world combined?

If you consider abortion murder, this is not true at all. Just saying.

Rantor - "Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones."

Here, here! And let's go one step further. Let's start calling for laws that require all school teachers, headmasters and school janitors) to be trained in firearms safety and proficient in their use. And they should be should be required to carry while on the job. This will serve two purposes. Firstly, the first responders will be right there at ground zero, when and where they are needed - not 5 minutes away. Secondly, it will serve as a deterrent to lily ass liberals becoming and/or remaining teachers.

Media Liberal: How can you defend the right to own an assault rifle? 20 Children were killed!Proper Conservative: Barack Obama murdered 60 children with a robot. Where is your outrage on that?Media Liberal: We are talking about guns.PC: Because you don't want to talk about Obama murdering children. American's should not have to give up their rights because of one crazy person. The kid was a product of divorce. Why don't we ban divorce?ML: (Sputtering)

I mean "constitutional" as in "not unconstitutional." I don't know if there are any explicit passages stipulating personal security, but the entire bill of rights doesn't make much sense if you don't have the right to personal security, so I assume it is implied by the constitution as a whole. (The Declaration of Ind., of course, states that we have the right to Life, Liberty...etc.) endowed by "the Creator."

Are you implying that the second amendment really has nothing to do with personal security? I thought that was the entire strategy of gun advocacy, so make the second amendment a personal security issue.

Great article by Vox, as usual! As I posted over on WND, though, I'm afraid it's still going to come down to our being willing to stand up, armed if necessary, against the "legal" authority of the government itself in order to preserve our rights.

Cops ask for more money for training and more effective arms so they won't be outgunned by outlaws. What makes a law abiding citizen any less deserving of the same protection from outlaws?

When do you call the cops? Usually it is when you have witnessed or are witnessing a crime in progress. Tell me what those two instances have in common. That's right, the crime already happened by the time the police hear about it. Now tell me how the police stop crimes from happening. I'll be here when you come up with an answer.

I was wondering on Friday why some random lady had multiple firearms including an assault rifle while living in the whitest place in the universe and why she would take her obviously disturbed child to a shooting range to practice. It turns out she was probably a survivalist nutjob and now it all makes sense.

Good post. I liked the last paragraph. A commentator at a Reuters article about this crime, Kharee wrote this:The leftist, morally bankrupt educational establishment is to be blamed for creating a dysfunctional, psychologically deviant gulag in which our children are entrapped. The school establishment at this time has no meaningful parental input. There is no PTA as there once was. Not community values. Only social deviant policies to maintain control and management of the leftist educational elites.

The schools create undisciplined, uneducated victims and criminals in the urban schools and drug dependent ,semi-educated ,mentally and emotional unstable lunatics in the suburbs. Lets take our schools back and rescue our children!. Abolish the Federal Dept. of Education. We must end the educational Gulag!This is Aristotle wrote in the Nicomachian Ethics, book II:"This view is supported by what happens in city-states. Legislators make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every legislator, and those who do not carry it out fail of their object. This is what makes the difference between a good constitution and a bad one.

The American Constitution is a bad constitution for nowhere is this "make their citizens good by habituation". What is this habituation?

Virtue.

You can NOT teach virtue by homeschooling! Impossible. For if Vox understood the basics of how to train a boy into manhood, the boy must be separated from the female! That is basic Manhood 101 (q.v. The Church Impotent Leon Podles). If homeschooling is largely carried out by females---that process can't happen! Vox is totally wrong. This is why the Cretans and the Spartans created PUBLIC education for. All their boys were trained by MEN and habitualized into the Good.

Aristotle is not making that up but referring to an historical reality. This teaching by Aristotle can NOT co-exist with "Freedom" of the Prots, Atheists and Jews who created the "Enlightenment". Americanism flies in the face of this wisdom that Aristotle points out.

The crime of Lanza was that he was never habitualized into the Good and was under the control of his mother, his whole life.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

"I was wondering on Friday why some random lady had multiple firearms including an assault rifle while living in the whitest place in the universe and why she would take her obviously disturbed child to a shooting range to practice. It turns out she was probably a survivalist nutjob and now it all makes sense."

According to you, those who value their lives and want to protect themselves are nutjobs? I'd say you're more than just a little bit mixed up.

The kid is psychotic. He had nothing at home but a lunatic mom. There was no dad to take care of business. The guns should have been secured outside the house. The blood is on her hands..... May God rest her soul....

Formula for these nut jobs: Mix one part broken home, two parts lunatic mom, 1/2 part no dad at home, 5 parts psychoactive meds, and 14 hours a day of violent video games while high on pharmakia for 10 years, now add to one mentally unstable 20 year old infant in a body with testosterone that has no chance of being used productively and Voila...... a govenment excuse to disarm the only people holding them back from dominating a planet of sheep.

According to you, those who value their lives and want to protect themselves are nutjobs? I'd say you're more than just a little bit mixed up.

The mother apparently didn't value her life or protect herself. She placed her psychotic son into an environment of constant and unfounded paranoia and reaped the reward that should have seemed obvious. What exactly does someone need an assault rifle for in Newtown CT? The possibility of Mad Max has now outlived another survivalist.

In an unrelated note the man in China that stabbed all those kids may have been influenced by "doomsday rumors". The endless and unfiltered nonsense has a price.

Athor Pel, you say, "Cops ask for more money for training and more effective arms so they won't be outgunned by outlaws. What makes a law abiding citizen any less deserving of the same protection from outlaws?

When do you call the cops? Usually it is when you have witnessed or are witnessing a crime in progress. Tell me what those two instances have in common. That's right, the crime already happened by the time the police hear about it. Now tell me how the police stop crimes from happening. I'll be here when you come up with an answer."

You speak my mind here as well, sir! I noticed the cops running around, kitted up the we were in combat zones in Iraq, and while I don't begrudge them the means to defend themselves, I find it to be the height of absurdity that they possess the latest and greatest equipment in order to deal with criminals . . . after the fact (?!!?), while the average citizen is often viewed by the "elites" as a nutjob for wanting to carry the comparatively modest means in the form of a handgun.

Our paradigm needs to switch radically back to citizens understanding that it is THEIR primary responsibility to defend themselves, not "law enforcement"! We will never entirely eliminate this kind of senseless killing in a sinful world, but more armed citizens = FAR less of it!

Here is Anon who posted at Sipsey Street Irregulars:Years ago there was a very good PBS series called "Connections". In one episode they followed a chain of connections that showed that the with of a Shuttle's SRB was determined by the width of two Horse's "posteriors".

At the last meeting of the SDS that Bill Ayers was allowed to attend he advocated that the SDS make plans to become more violent. His argument was that until American families saw their children murdered in a similar fashion to South Vietnamese children being murdered by American forces, they would never truly understand the Vietnam War or support SDS's effort to get the fighting stopped. His suggection was that SDS begin targeted bombings of American elementary schools. The short story is that, as a result of the horror felt by the rest the organization at his suggestion, his faction was expelled from SDS and and went on to form Weather Underground. Needless to say Mr. Ayers didn't get to commit his chain of school bombings. If he had, this week's shootings in Newtown, CT. would not have made anywhere near the impact on the public that they have.

Fast foreward a few years and you find Barak Obama starting his first political campaign event: a fundraiser in the living room of... Bill Ayers.

So....

Is there any connection between the current POTUS and a former bomb throwing anarchist who advocated the murder of American school children and the internment of 25 million Americans in re-education camps?

Josh and Noah B. our resident jooos. Because in order to destroy Western culture and civilization, they mean to slander and demean the forefathers of our Culture. What is worse, buggery (if that happened at all) or killing children that the Hebrews carried out countless of times! The Jews were the master Genociders of Classical Antiquity. I throw out the buggery when you throw out the genociders. Murder is a far bigger offense than buggery (if it happened.)

"I mean "constitutional" as in "not unconstitutional." I don't know if there are any explicit passages stipulating personal security, but the entire bill of rights doesn't make much sense if you don't have the right to personal security, so I assume it is implied by the constitution as a whole. (The Declaration of Ind., of course, states that we have the right to Life, Liberty...etc.) endowed by "the Creator."

Are you implying that the second amendment really has nothing to do with personal security? I thought that was the entire strategy of gun advocacy, so make the second amendment a personal security issue."

Your main problem is that you think that there is either a magical fairy or the government out there charged to protect you from all harm. There isn't. The Constitution spells out that the government is to protect the borders (no interest in that any more). It isn't there to protect you. Think I'm wrong? Unless your one of the elite I doubt you'll see your own private armed escort when you look over your shoulder. The onus of protecting you falls on.... you. You may want to do it with a can of mace or an umbrella. Me, given the choice I'd carry a pistol. It is my misfortune to currently reside in the last state without ccw permits.

> ...but there are fairly strict laws controlling the sale and use of alcohol.

Yeah. You have to be 21. That's pretty much it.

There are far stricter laws controlling the sale and use of guns. Laws which he broke by first taking the guns and then using them in a gun free zone.

> I don't know if there are any explicit passages stipulating personal security,

Nice to see you admit that you don't know something for once. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search at the moment, but I don't think there are, unless you consider the "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" to qualify.

> I thought that was the entire strategy of gun advocacy, so make the second amendment a personal security issue.

You thought wrong. That's only one of the reasons for the second amendment. The other is to act as a check on government tyranny.

When Gunrunner-in-Chief interrupted my football game last night to use the corpses of children to explain to grieving parents why guns belong in the hands of drug warlords as long as he gets paid, I'll admit it...I laughed.

The only reason liberals support gun control is that they haven't figured out yet how to reliably profit from direct sales to the law-abiding.

TGM: " but there are fairly strict laws controlling the sale and use of alcohol.."

Yeah, what we need are some laws about the sale and use of firearms... oh wait... we already got *thousands of them*. /s

Hey not so great, are you really that ignorant, or just a disingenuous troll? Connecticut already has some of the strictest laws, this guy and the evil doofus in OR stole guns from someone else. In this case it looks like (unless the msm has tweaked their story once again for maximized propaganda purposes) he killed his own mom and stole her guns. Guess what we need are gun laws like those alcohol laws that prohibit anyone from keeping booze in their house... oh, wait, there aren't any.....

STFU with the comparisons about alcohol or cars etc. they just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Josh and Noah B. our resident jooos. Because in order to destroy Western culture and civilization, they mean to slander and demean the forefathers of our Culture. What is worse, buggery (if that happened at all) or killing children that the Hebrews carried out countless of times! The Jews were the master Genociders of Classical Antiquity. I throw out the buggery when you throw out the genociders. Murder is a far bigger offense than buggery (if it happened.)

I'm not Jewish, and now that there are actual Jews here, I'm no longer the "token jew bankster".

You're actually the one behaving like a Jew, calling everyone who criticizes your beloved Sparta a marxist who hates western culture.

I'm actually much more western than you are, btw.

Regarding the Hebrew genocides, did the greeks not also kill entire cities? Furthermore, since these "genocides" by the Hebrews occurred under the direct commandof God himself, are you calling God a murderer?

Hopefully, this latest shooting and the publicity surrounding it will lead to a re-adoption of the ban on many assault rifles as well as a ban on high capacity clips, as well as bringing background checks to gun shows. I read that such a bill will be introduced in January when the new Congress is seated.

Hopefully, this latest shooting and the publicity surrounding it will lead to a re-adoption of the ban on many assault rifles as well as a ban on high capacity clips, as well as bringing background checks to gun shows. I read that such a bill will be introduced in January when the new Congress is seated.

You sure about that Tad? Perhaps you should check the data. In the decade that embraced Clinton's so-called "assault weapons" ban, the incidence of mass killings (and the number of victims) more than doubled. This sudden and dramatic increase followed (1) a successful campaign by liberals to make it more difficult to involuntarily commit mentally ill people in the 1970s and (2) the introduction of PROZAC and related drugs and a virtual explosion in the number of people taking these drugs. I am NOT in favor of giving the state any additional tools to confine anyone, but clearly the factor that changed was not the "easy availability of firearms" (it's been more difficult to get them since 1968 than at any time in American history).

I don't know about that. However, I do know that banning assault weapons, forcing background checks at gun shows and outlawing high capacity clips will reduce the number of assault weapons in circulation, will reduce the number of high capacity clips in circulation and will reduce the possibility of convicted felons from possessing assault weapons and high capacity clips. And that's a good start.

Because when an angry, unstable kid gets it in his head that his problems will be solved by killing his mother and his peers, I'd much rather he have access to a bottle of Cabernet than a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round clip.

"I don't know about that. However, I do know that banning assault weapons, forcing background checks at gun shows and outlawing high capacity clips will reduce the number of assault weapons in circulation, will reduce the number of high capacity clips in circulation and will reduce the possibility of convicted felons from possessing assault weapons and high capacity clips. And that's a good start."

Then you're incapable of learning from observable reality. All of those items were in effect from 1994 to 2004. They had no effect what so ever on gun deaths in America. Also... Columbine happened in 1999... and there were two school shootings in 1998.

TGM: "The problem is that it's a contest between rights to security, both of which are Constitutional. The right to bear arms doesn't trump the right to not get shot, so it's a contest between equivalent interests."

1. Your 'right to not get shot' (or otherwise wantonly killed or harmed for no reason) is a human right, not a constitutional right. Nevertheless one could say it is indeed a right -- but a natural one. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not grant you your rights; your rights come from God. The only thing the Bill of Rights does is make a list of certain glaring red lines which are explicitly never to be crossed by the federal government.

2. Your _constitutional_ 'right to not get shot' consists only of your right to not get shot by the federal government. (except for certain limited and enumerated reasons.) And that is for a very homely and boring reason, and it is this: because wantonly shooting you is not one of the limited and enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the several states.

3. Your right to bear arms is constitutional in the sense that it is explicitly guaranteed, and is essentially unconditional ("shall not be infringed" is a far more universal writ than the specific "Congress shall make no law"). You had a prior natural or human right to self-defense, and by extension to bear arms. What the Second Amendment does is act as a guarantor that the federal government, and also the states ("shall not be infringed" is universal, and doesn't just refer to the feds) shall not infringe upon your right.

The last video game that put me into a murderous rage was... Need For Speed: Underground. There was something about colliding with a train at 200+mph for 30 times straight that just pushed me over the edge.

4. Insofar as you have a natural right to not get shot, you still have to take steps to "secure" it. (See the Declaration, "that to secure these Rights". This is all John Locke 101. If you have not read John Locke, then stop at once, go read John Locke, and do not argue further until after you have read John Locke.) The two ways that you secure these rights are:a) you delegate a certain amount of your personal authority to your state government, which in turn, and on your behalf and with your consent, organizes a police force and other measures designed to promote public safety (this has already been done, and you merely grant your assent to it); and b) you take whatever personal measures you deem expedient to protect yourself, such as arming yourself, making your personal appearance seem formidable, and/or avoiding places where people are wantonly shooting one another a lot of the time (such as, for instance, riots, or any place where large numbers of black people live).

5. The one thing you can NOT do to secure your natural right to not get shot, is to infringe on other people's rights, or to cause the government on your behalf, and with your urging and consent, to infringe on other people's rights -- the right in question here being, wait for it... the right to keep and bear arms. That is what "shall not be infringed" means; it means this right shall not be infringed, under any circumstances, regardless of whether it makes you feel unsafe. It is a stop-gap against your counter-claim of a right to safety, and it is absolute; and now I have just explained to you why and how, in the "conflicting rights" scenario which you outlined, under the Constitution one right does indeed trump the other. If I have been clear, then you now know which right wins in that contest.

On the other hand, there is a sense in which your scenario is realistically plausible and correct because in point of fact, we no longer live under a true constitutional dispensation and have not done so for a very long time. For the right price, I am certain that you and your allies can simply buy the necessary number of Supreme Court justices who will search with an electron microscope to find penumbras and emanations which justify whatever zany thing you'd like; and if they still can't find it, they'll use a Large Hadron Legal Collider to simply create legal sub-particles out of thin air, which will cause any right your heart desires to magically come into being.

Tad,Like most liberals... you simply are ignorant of the gun laws in the US. The "gun show loophole" you think exists doesn't actually have anything to do with gun shows. Private citizens sell guns to each other. No background check is required. When firearms dealers sell guns... background checks are required.

There is no way to enforce a law that requires a private citizen to get a background check on another private citizen before selling a gun to him. In other words... we've done all we can do.

@scoobious:3. Your right to bear arms is constitutional in the sense that it is explicitly guaranteed, and is essentially unconditional ("shall not be infringed" is a far more universal writ than the specific "Congress shall make no law").

Would you argue that the constitution guarantees the right to possess any form arms?

@nate The "gun show loophole" you think exists doesn't actually have anything to do with gun shows. Private citizens sell guns to each other. No background check is required. When firearms dealers sell guns... background checks are required.

Perhaps the way to go is to ban person to person sales of guns, in the same way that it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license to do so.

>>Formula for these nut jobs: Mix one part broken home, two parts lunatic mom, 1/2 part no dad at home, 5 parts psychoactive meds, and 14 hours a day of violent video games while high on pharmakia for 10 years...

Expanding on that:http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024027.html(...)"Why is there so much mental illness like this in America? The conservative answer is that it is the result of liberal and feminist ideology, i.e. widespread fatherlessness due to divorce and illegitimacy, elimination of male authority, demonization of maleness itself, the condemnation of normal boyish behavior as sickness, and then pumping misbehaving boys full of psycho-active drugs which often help but often make them worse."(...)"I stick to the traditionalist conservative explanation: through our ideology of radical personal freedom and anti-maleness we have destroyed the familial and social structure needed for a sane human life, and the main casualties of this destruction are young males. As I say about so many contemporary social problems, the only cure is a return to a traditionalist order of society. which is not going to happen as long as liberal society still functions, however poorly, and liberalism remains our guiding ideology. Therefore, like our other terrible problems, the problem of widespread mental illness and dangerously violent males cannot be fixed until after liberal society has largely destroyed itself."(...)

America has become the worldwide vanguard of insane late modernity-its promise is to reduce to reduce the bulk of mankind to the status of nothing more than consuming beasts. I think you have to take the side of the Afghan mujaheddin over the side of the regime that coddles-and even celebrates-ghetto vermin and subsidized sluts.

Given what the 'kwa has become, you have to expect incidents like this on a regular basis:http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/our-more-perfect-union/(...)"Viewing footage of the Black Friday rite, we must conclude that it is one phenomenon among many uniting Americans of the most diverse ancestry into a common cause- the cult of Mammon. Look into the consumer throngs: here can be seen the uprooted children of Africa, Meso-Americans, Asians and the sad descendants of the Indo-Europeans. As editorial writers have informed us upon President Obama's re-election, the United States has entered "a new normal" of cultural and demographic transformation. The old holiday of Thanksgiving simply did not extract the necessary profits desired by the corporate-financial priesthood, and so it was re-formulated according to their wishes. In the same way the U.S. population has been subjected to several decades of Cabalistic processing through every available means: psychological warfare waged by the media-entertainment complex, indoctrination in academia and so many of the churches, and waves of immigration from alien lands. Black Friday marks the perfection of mass man, the "individual" consumer wholly divorced from generations of his faith, ethnic heritage and family, a slave to debt, technology and base impulses."(...)

Tad is advocating bans on person to person sales, which naturally requires gun registration at the federal level. Gun registration naturally requires fees, unannounced searches from police, and policies that make it difficult for the average law-abiding citizen to own a gun. (I don't know of a single, long-standing system of gun registration that has not eventually led to policies that prevent average citizens from owning guns and to confiscation of many of the guns that were originally allowed.)

So, to be clear, all of the gun control advocates want to take the country on a path that leads directly to gun bans. There is no logical middle ground here. They're just too cowardly and dishonest to admit their true objective.

Vox, I realize you allow the trolls and nutjobs to post because they best illustrate their idiocy, but then comment threads become nothing but endless "he said, she said" with everyone else thinking logic and reason might be effective against emotionalized, infantilized liberalism. "Tad" the queer Jew trolling here obviously gets off on this, and the other commenters must enjoy their pointless debates with him, because they go on ad nauseam.

Gang members in Mitchell's Plain in Cape Town who don't have access to guns simply stab their victims with knives or screwdrivers. The number one cause of Friday night fatalities in South African "informal settlements" are due to stabbings with broken beer bottles. Want to kill victims of a house robbery relatively silently? why not use half a brick?

It is not the prliferation of guns (or knives, glass bottles and bricks). It is that criminals have more ready access to them than do law-abiding citizens. I can drive into Mannenberg tomorrow and after two or three hours and the equivalent of about $500 can get my hand on an untraceable police-issue 9mm and ammo. It will take me 6 months(theoretically) to 3 years(in practice) and around $1200 to get a similar pistol through legal channels.

Guns are not going away. Even if every gun in America were instantly destroyed, new ones would be built and smuggled in tomorrow.

The choice is between a world in which law abiding citizens can possess guns and a world in which only criminals have them. The experience of every nation that has enacted gun control has shown that the result is an overall increase in crime, usually including murders. No gun control advocates have made a convincing case for why this time would be different. Of course, they can't.

Someone who knowingly takes a course of action, where the overall effect is known to be detrimental, is mentally ill. Gun control advocates are mentally ill, willing to put their feelings above the known logical consequences of their actions. We cannot allow the mentally ill to make public policy.

Your treatment here today reminds me of the last time I visited a steak house. You're getting cut up, bro! You probably enjoy rough treatment at the hands of large groups of uncivilized alpha males, though don't you?

But this is what Aristotle writes in the Nicomachian Ethics, Book II:"This view is supported by what happens in city-states. Legislators make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every legislator, and those who do not carry it out fail of their object. This is what makes the difference between a good constitution and a bad one.

The American Constition is bad! This is how moronic Nate, Josh and Noah are! Because the ancient Greek republics were NOT about "freedom" but about attaining the Good and Theosis.

Nate December 17, 2012 10:28 AM

"This is why the Cretans and the Spartans created PUBLIC education for. All their boys were trained by MEN and habitualized into the Good."

This idiocy again?

God you're the biggest moron that comments here. And I'm including Tad and the other ankle biters in that claim. Sparta didn't create men. It created savages. It was nothing but a blood thirsty war tribe that was barely above cannibalism."

Xenophon said that the happiest men he ever met were the Spartans. Xenophon, who went to war with them in the Anabasis, lived with them. The group was led by a Spartan. Later, he served under a Spartan king and he lived in the environs of Sparta and his sons went thru the Spartan agoge. Xenophon wrote of them that they were ALL Kaloskagthos! Kaloskagathos means "the beautiful and the good".

Socrates is the founder of Western Culture, thought. It is reported that Socrates' favorite models of good government were Sparta and Crete.(Crito 52e) So Nate you are greater than Socrates?

Socrates in the Protagoras (sec 343) about the Seven Wise men of Greece "THAT THEY WERE ALL emulators, admirers and disciples" of Spartan Culture. Socrates said that the Spartans had the "Highest culture"!!! The so-called "Socratic elencus" was really Dorian/Spartan thought testing paradigm.

Nate who is a Moran? You are! All of Socrates and Plato's stuff comes from the Spartans! Socrates was an "emulator, admirer, disciple" of Spartan culture and Socrates and Plato laid the groundwork for Western Culture, Western Civilization and Christendom!

Would banning "assault weapons" be more or less effective than simply arming teachers or administrators in order to prevent these types of killings?

I just saw this and thought some here would like it (somehow I don't think Tad will think much of it). I really don't' know if this can be compared to the US given Israel's situation. Can it be and does anyone know of any statistics that would be relevant comparing the US to school shootings/terror attacks (involving guns) in Israel?

@NoahThe choice is between a world in which law abiding citizens can possess guns and a world in which only criminals have them.

This is in fact not the choice. Never has been the choice and there is no indication it ever will be the choice. There will be no banning of gun ownership until the Constitution is amended.

Your black and white contention regarding this is merely a rhetorical tool to to stake out a position that could be staked out without you ever having blown your credibility by making such an absurd statement.

Just the POSSIBILITY of a teacher, janitor, or principal being armed would probably deter many of these mass killings. As it now stands, every adult in a school is required by law to be a helpless victim in the face of a killer.

It's hard to imagine forcing someone who has shown no aggression towards others to be defenseless. It's disgusting and totally immoral, all in the name of proving to the gun control fanatics that there are no monsters hiding in the closet.

"This is in fact not the choice. Never has been the choice and there is no indication it ever will be the choice. There will be no banning of gun ownership until the Constitution is amended."

In New York, Chicago, and many other jurisdictions, guns are effectively banned for law abiding citizens. This doesn't include the wealthy elite, of course (they fall into the "criminals" category.) So you're either ignorant or you're a liar.

First of all Tad, my 30 round magazine does have a purpose besides shooting little kids. Although it would be pretty handy for that too. I use mine for shooting coyotes. It is nice to be able to hunt all day without changing magazines. Although on saturday morning mine misfed after the first shot. My uncle finished off the coyote by the time I cleared the jam.

For shooting kids, a five round magazine would be OK. Even a bayonett would work once the adults are down.

T: "Perhaps the way to go is to ban person to person sales of guns, in the same way that it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license to do so."

If I legally purchase some beer at a retail store, take it home, and my buddy who is over 21 comes by and asks me to sell him a couple, and I do, I have not broken any Federal law.

There is no Federal "gun show loophole". There is no law which states a sale or transfer is illegal "unless it takes place at a gun show".

There are some states, like California (anyone know if this is the case in Conn? I know that they have relatively strict firearms laws), which have laws strictly regulating private sales of some firearms, requiring they be transferred through a dealer with an FFL, but this is not a Federal law.

One reason for lack of such Federal legislation until now may be that in the current political climate with a populace having much greater access to related information, it is much more difficult to make a compelling argument that private sales could somehow be regulated using the same "commerce clause" (which is ridiculous IMAO) used as a basis for other Federal firearms laws and regulations.

Recent laws in some states (Montana and Tennessee I think) challenging Federal jurisdiction over private firearms sales and even manufacture may also be another bump in the road to more Federal tyranny.

Most readers here are probably already knowledgeable about this, but it is difficult me to allow the hoplophobic weenies and tards post the usual crap without challenging it.

Tad said: Perhaps the way to go is to ban person to person sales of guns, in the same way that it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license to do so.

Then you are obviously ignorant of the old Southern tradition of "moonshining", which goes on to this very day. If you've lived in a town down South for any length of time, and have even half-way decent reputation, (and sometimes not even that), getting "Shine" is the easiest thing in the world.

You can buy all the booze you care to drink before you are 21, and it is a no-brainer to do so. You can easily buy all manner of illegal drugs. Italy has some fairly tough gun laws regarding handguns, but if it takes you more than half an hour to buy a Beretta in Naples, from a previously unknown "private party", then you just aren't really trying.

The Progressive belief that just by outlawing something you can make it really, really hard to get, is touching in kind of a sweet, simple, pollyannish way.

Take high capacity clips. The few sold, the less likelihood they will get into people's hands. That's good.

If I'm the only armed person in a gun free zone, and I'm spraying the place with gunfire from two guns, exactly what do you think you're going to accomplish by forcing me to reload an extra time or two?

So, Vox how do you handle this what Aristotle writes in the Nicomachian Ethics, Book II:"This view is supported by what happens in city-states. Legislators make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every legislator, and those who do not carry it out fail of their object. This is what makes the difference between a good constitution and a bad one."

Are you greater than Aristotle? Greater than Socrates or Plato? It was your precious "freedom" that led to Adam Lanza! It was YOUR Enlightenment and anti-Catholic Protestant views that led to Adam Lanza. It was "freedom" that created Adam Lanza!

If Socrates was an admirer, emulator and disciple of Sparta and he was also the """"Wisest"""" man in Greece, what does Wisdom dictate? That is right, none of you know what Wisdom is! Wisdom is not some political ideology. Josh, Nate, Vox, Noah--all get their inclinations from the Atheist/Jewish inspired "Enlightenment".

The point of Sparta, is not about "Conquering" anybody! She was NOT Rome. Her glory is in how she created Men and the discovery and obedience to the real, original Natural Law; their obedience to the Logos! The so-called "Enlightenment" was a destruction of Western Culture. YOU are NOT Western culture. None of you are! You are all Jews. If you think like a Jew--You are a Jew! Noah, Nate, Josh, you may be Europeans but you think like Jooos. "Thief knows Thief" is the Natural Law. I know my kind. I know Western culture---YOU do NOT.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had no qualms about endorsing, advocating, imitating and continuing Doric Greek ideals. Christianity did not either. Christendom was embued with Plato and his teachings. The Jewish Atheist "Enlightenment" was about destroying Western Culture, that is why you attack the Spartans. You are the products of the Enlightenment. You created Adam Lanza.

Vox, Socrates asked in the Republic can Virtue be taught. Can Virtue be taught Vox--or is it about "freedom"?

Yes. They are. You're just remarkably ignorant on the matter because you happen to not like scary guns.

No, they aren't, if you take the word "effectively" in a way other than it was intended. I think it is a pretty good example of the effectiveness of gun bans in general. Handguns are banned. The ban is not effective.

"People refuse to acknowledge the obvious. These psychos go to schools because they can get the most attention for doing so."

Maybe but I think it's more because they know everyone there is completely DEFENSELESS ... "schools are gun-free zones" you know. So the school is pretty much advertising "Hey! Psychos! sitting ducks here. lots of people to shoot, no guns anywhere nearby."

Weapons training for all front office personnel and the option for any of them and any teachers with a FOID to pack heat. No. Give them the RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that at least 5-10 adults in every school has a piece every day!!

When you can demonstrate that these law had no impact whatsoever in any regard.

@ Tad. I bought my AR-15 while the ban was in effect. It prevented me from having a bayonet lug on my rifle, which has doubtless saved many children. Otherwise, banning guns based on scariness is pretty silly.

Also, the model name of my gun was "PCR-1" which stands for "politically correct rifle". I still find that uproarious.

Yes. They are. You're just remarkably ignorant on the matter because you happen to not like scary guns.

No, they aren't, if you take the word "effectively" in a way other than it was intended. I think it is a pretty good example of the effectiveness of gun bans in general. Handguns are banned. The ban is not effective.

Don't be a disingenuous prick. The word "effectively" is being used to modify the word "banned" in the sense that what's not called a ban is, in essence, a ban. It's not being used to discuss the success or failure of banning guns.

It is effectively an ineffective ban. Tad doesn't want to admit that because they are about the most violent places in the country.

You purposefully undermine your position by making deliberately stupid and misleading comments? Why would you take such a foolish tact, particularly with someone like Tad, who doesn't bother with subtlety, logic or reason?

I do not know to whom the sock puppet named Tad belongs, but please try to make it more realistic. It is liable to become embarrassingly ineffective if this keeps up. Kermit the Frog has more verisimilitude and a greater intellectual range.

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns

"In place of banning firearms would anyone consider the proposition that some people should not be allowed access to firearms?"

Such a system is already in place. People are deprived of their second amendment rights under due process of law on a daily basis. But it must be pointed out that this system does not stop criminals from obtaining guns -- it only stops them from obtaining guns LEGALLY.

Josh, I will repeat what a Greek Orthodox bishop said to me when I said "But it's in the Old Testament". And he replied "I don't read that blood stained evil book".

Do tell me is God's Will that you run down fleeing soldiers and stab them in the back? That is Hebrew strategy! Show me where the Spartans did that? I tell you what, It was beneath the Spartans to chase unarmed men and kill them in the Back.

Or was it God's Will that the sons of Jacob wiped out a whole race of men and did so be lying to them to be circumsized and then attacked them killing all the men because one person slept with their sister? Is that Justice?

Or was it God's Will that King David used Agricultural implements and chariots to run over captured prisoners of war?

In all the Hebrews committed some ten or more genocides. They were a very violent, rapacious, mean group of people.

Hilaire Belloc would call them "the little violent people".

"And Saul said, Thus shall ye speak to David, The King wants no gift but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to avenge himself on the king's enemies".

That the Will of God Josh, Nate, Noah? So King Saul sent David to kill 100 other men for their foreskins!!! Tell me that is Spartan?!

Before you go throwing stones at glass houses it is better to pull the freakin' redwood log out of your eye before you pull the splinter out of the Spartan eye, you stupid, little, violent people!